The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[Edmond.DantesIII]

And why wouldn't an innocent parent WANT the BPD to have the garments they requested. If I'm innocent, I'm going to give you everything you need to rule me out.

If I were one of the Ramseys, I would not have trusted Steve Thomas, John Eller, or any member of the BPD as far as I could throw them, once it became clear that they were, not only incompetent, but convinced that I was guilty of brutally murdering my own daughter.

 

[OpenMind4U]

And what if the body were to be found in the basement? What explanation would they have then? And what good would be the ransom note? Indeed, a ransom note might look damningly suspicious with the body being found in the basement. Indeed, they could very well spend the next 16 years trying clear their name, even if no concrete proof of their culpability is ever discovered. Indeed, even if they were to be somehow exonerated, there would likely be hordes of internet posters steadfastly convinced that they were guilty as sin.


Seems to me that we have prima facie evidence that dumping the body in the woods would have been the much better option, especially in the wake of the Casey Anthony trial.

And what if the body were to be found in the basement?
The body WAS found in basement!

What explanation would they have then? And what good would be the ransom note?
EDIII, Ramseys are FREE today. One underground, another above. No one been prosecuted...YET!!!!! So, ransom note worked!

Casey Anthony and Ramseys are IDENTICAL TRASH!!!!!

 

[redheadedgal]

It is not enough to believe. You have to know. There are lives and legacies at stake here.

did you even LOOK at the link? acandylandrose and WS owner tricia are very reliable sources:twocents:


(btw, "lives and legacies"? :floorlaugh

 

[BOESP]

If I were one of the Ramseys, I would not have trusted Steve Thomas, John Eller, or any member of the BPD as far as I could throw them, once it became clear that they were, not only incompetent, but convinced that I was guilty of brutally murdering my own daughter.

Where might we find these charges of incompetence?

 

[UKGuy]

I see... and you know this how?



So, in your mind, in order for me to be credible, I need to have been on the scene myself, and have conducted all my own investigation, without ever examining the investigations of others and whatever evidence they may have found? Is this what you're saying?



A causal link? In what way?



Actually, the glaring evidence of a ransom note and the body notwithstanding, there is quite a lot of evidence suggesting an intruder:

Specific Evidence of Intruder Entry

"The butler's door to the kitchen was found ajar that morning. (SMF P 137; PSMF P 137.) Defendants note that the butler's door was only a short distance away from the spiral staircase where the Ransom Note was found and within plain view of where the pad of paper used for the Ransom Note was found. (SMF P 138; PSMF P 138.)" (Carnes 2003:89-90)."

"There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically the leaves and white styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the window-well appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the center window's sill in the well. (SMF P 132; PSMF P 132.)" (Carnes 2003:88)."

"Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently. (SMF P 131; PSMF P 131.)" (Carnes 2003:88)."

"In addition, this center window had a broken pane and was found open on the morning of December 26, with a suitcase and a glass shard from the window pane underneath it. (SMF P 135; PSMF P 135.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
"the Boulder Police conducted experiments that showed a person could enter the basement playroom through the center window. (SMF P 133; PSMF P 133.)" (Carnes 2003:88)."

"The suitcase contained a pillow sham, duvet and Dr. Seuss book. These items belonged to defendants, but they have indicated that the items were not normally stored in the suitcase. (SMF P 146; PSMF P 146.) A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 32)."

"Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF P 136; PSMF P 136.)" (Carnes 2003:88)."

"Likewise a leaf and white styro-foam packing peanuts, consistent with the leaves and packing peanuts found pooled in the window-well, were found in the wine-cellar room of the basement where JonBenet's body was discovered. (SMF P 134; PSMF P 134.)" This evidence is consistent with an inference that whoever entered through this window ultimately walked to the wine-cellar room at some point. (Carnes 2003:88-89)."

"The lights were on in the basement, when first searched at approximately 6:15 a.m. that day. (SMF P 129; PSMF P 129.)" (Carnes 2003:89).

What Other Evidence May Have Been Left by an Intruder?

"Black Duct Tape. "The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also not been sourced to defendants. (SMF P 170; PSMF P 170.) Both ends of the duct tape found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape that had been used before. (SMF P 171; PSMF P 171.) No similar duct tape was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever used or owned such duct tape. (SMF P 172; PSMF P 172.)" (Carnes 2003:18)."

"Cord. "sources for the....cord used in the crime were never located, nor sourced, to defendants' home." (Carnes 2003:10)."

"Animal Hair on Duct Tape. "Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.)" (Carnes 2003:19)."

"Animal Hairs on JBR's Hands. "Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF P 184; PSMF P 184.)" (Carnes 2003:19)."

"Footprints in Basement. "Several recently-made unidentified shoeprints were found in the basement, imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF P 151; PSMF P 151.) In particular, a shoeprint of a "HI-TEC" brand mark on the sole of a shoe was found. (SMF P 152; PSMF P 152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes, and none of the shoes found in their home match the shoeprint marks. (SMF P 153; PSMF P 153.) Another partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 155; PSMF P 155.) This shoeprint left only a partial logo. The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the shoeprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF P 154, 155; PSMF P 154, 155.)" (Carnes 2003:19)."

Palmprint on Wine-Cellar Door. "In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.) The individual to whom it belongs had not yet been identified. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.)" (Carnes 2003:19-20).

"Baseball Bat. "A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 185; PSMF P 185.)" (Carnes 2003:20)."

"Rope and Bag in JAR Bedroom. "a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom."

"Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet." (Carnes 2003:93-94)."

"Brown Cotton Fibers. "Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) (Carnes 2003:20)."

"Caucasian Hair on Blanket. "Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not *1357 matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF P 179-180; PSMF P 179-180.)" (Carnes 2003:96).

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682468/Evidence of an Intruder

Edmond.DantesIII,

I see... and you know this how?

...

So, in your mind, in order for me to be credible, I need to have been on the scene myself, and have conducted all my own investigation, without ever examining the investigations of others and whatever evidence they may have found? Is this what you're saying?

In both of the above cases you cited probabilities as the basis for your veridical fact that Patsy Ramsey was not the Ransom Note Author.

When asked to provide them you cited Expert Opinion and offered no probabilities and no statistical information.

A causal link? In what way?

I highlighted the relevant text. It is your text not mine, so its for you to explain, not me.

All your evidential items have either been accounted for, or are unidentified. Absence of identity does not demonstrate an intruder.


.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

did you even LOOK at the link? acandylandrose and WS owner tricia are very reliable sources:twocents:

Yes, I have looked at the link and I find it wanting.

"Third palm print later reportedly identified as belonging to Melinda Ramsey (RMN-08/23/2002)"

When the word "reportedly" is used in this context, it typically means that the information cited has not been confirmed. Of course, it could be the case that this palm print has been absolutely confirmed as belonging to Melinda, but that is not evident in the link provided.


12/26/96 Two unidentifed shoe prints found on wine cellar floor - 12/26/96 One Hi-Tec boot print found on the wine cellar floor - 08/28/2000 Atlanta Interviews, Patsy Ramsey, Lin Wood, and PI Ollie Gray were all told that Burke Ramsey and Fleet White Jr both said they had owned Hi-Tec brand shoes.

All this says is that Burke and Fleet White Jr. both owned Hi-Tec brand shoes. It says nothing about whether the prints discovered in the wine cellar were confirmed as having been made by Burke or FW Jr.

Again, it could be the case that the prints have been confirmed as belonging to Burke or FW Jr., but this is not clear in the link, which brings us back to the point I was trying to make:

It is not enough to believe. When there are lives at stake, you have to know. If the poster was basing her faith on some rather vague snippets obtained from a garish and poorly designed website, then I'd say she was being rather naive and presumptuous, even if the information implied is ultimately correct.

 

[BOESP]

<snipped>
It is not enough to believe. When there are lives at stake, you have to know. <snipped>

The law asks for "beyond reasonable doubt," not "irrefutable proof."

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

...

Three dots is not an answer. I asked you a question. I want an answer.

Once again: And you know this how?

If you recall, I am referring to your alleged understanding of the fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam. where you commented:

"Oh but it is, if you do not do your own maths and rely on the opinion of a second party and an alleged expert in the field, then that is argumentum ad verecundiam, which is what you have employed in an attempt to demonstrate something which cannot be established, i.e. Ransom Note authorship."

Do you know what you are talking about, and if so, how?

In both of the above cases you cited probabilities as the basis for your veridical fact that Patsy Ramsey was not the Ransom Note Author.

When asked to provide them you cited Expert Opinion and offered no probabilities and no statistical information.

Actually, I gave you very specific probabilities based upon the scale used by the handwriting experts.

Absence of identity does not demonstrate an intruder.

It does not necessarily rule out the possibility of an intruder either, especially in the face of glaring evidence regarding a ransom note which clearly did not write itself and the body of a little girl who clearly did not kill herself.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

The law asks for "beyond reasonable doubt," not "irrefutable proof."

And your point is?

 

[Tricia]

To use your ignore button click on "Your Notifications" and click on your PM's. Look to your left for "settings and options". Then click on "Edit ignore list."

If posters are making you angry the best way to handle it is the ignore button. That way you can't see their post but you can still read everyone elses.

Thank you,
Tricia

 

[redheadedgal]

To use your ignore button click on "Your Notifications" and click on your PM's. Look to your left for "settings and options". Then click on "Edit ignore list."

or,

just click on their name which will take you to their profile... under their name is "user lists"... click that then "ignore user"

 

[UKGuy]

Three dots is not an answer. I asked you a question. I want an answer.

Once again: And you know this how?

If you recall, I am referring to your alleged understanding of the fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam. where you commented:

"Oh but it is, if you do not do your own maths and rely on the opinion of a second party and an alleged expert in the field, then that is argumentum ad verecundiam, which is what you have employed in an attempt to demonstrate something which cannot be established, i.e. Ransom Note authorship."

Do you know what you are talking about, and if so, how?




Actually, I gave you very specific probabilities based upon the scale used by the handwriting experts.



It does not necessarily rule out the possibility of an intruder either, especially in the face of glaring evidence regarding a ransom note which clearly did not write itself and the body of a little girl who clearly did not kill herself.

Edmond.DantesIII,

Once again: And you know this how?

Because I know it. And I also know that you do not, since you cite the latin phrase and not the common phrase. If I did not know it, you could apply its definition to demonstrate where I am wrong. This you fail to do.

Actually, I gave you very specific probabilities based upon the scale used by the handwriting experts.

Precisely, this is Arguing from Authority, the figures and opinion are not yours.

There is absolutely no forensic evidence that links to any person outside of the Ramsey Household, i.e. no intruder. All three Ramseys are linked to forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar.


.

 

[TartLemon]

As soon as the 'discovery' of JonBenet, JR was scheduling a private jet ride out of town. His daughter's murdered body is lying on the floor; he's not screaming Who/Why or catch the perp....do what you have to do. It's let's get as far away from the evidence as possible. Was there any indication JR wanted to take JonBenet's body with them?

IMO, Boulder PD and prosecutor mishandled the case. Lucky for the Ramseys, huh?

Patsy died and then it was announced they were no longer suspects. Case closed because, IMO, the perp died.

 

[madeleine]

Even IF PDI,it shouldn't be a closed case since everything indicates that JR wasn't just an innocent bystander....far from it....

 

[TartLemon]

I believe JR knew after the fact of JonBenet's death; Patsy was the perp and 'took care' of most of it before JR even got involved. Patsy was not expected to live much longer, anyway. Turns out she did not die for @10 more years.

I saw an interview on LKL when JR was running for some political office in Michigan. Patsy would not let him speak, butting in even when the questions were about HIS platform. After that display, I truly believe she had him convinced 'I will die anyway. Don't make it be in prison for our son's sake.' Of course it was for HER benefit, but still....

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Because I know it.

Obviously, you do not, and you just proved it.

And I also know that you do not, since you cite the latin phrase and not the common phrase.

OMG.

If I did not know it, you could apply its definition to demonstrate where I am wrong. This you fail to do.

I don't have to. You beat me to it.

Precisely, this is Arguing from Authority, the figures and opinion are not yours.

WRONG.

There is absolutely no forensic evidence that links to any person outside of the Ramsey Household, i.e. no intruder. All three Ramseys are linked to forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar.

WRONG, again. :seeya:

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

As soon as the 'discovery' of JonBenet, JR was scheduling a private jet ride out of town. His daughter's murdered body is lying on the floor; he's not screaming Who/Why or catch the perp....do what you have to do. It's let's get as far away from the evidence as possible. Was there any indication JR wanted to take JonBenet's body with them?

If JR knew with absolute certainty that his daughter had been brutally murdered by intruders--and not his wife, his son, or himself--then he had very good reason to get the rest of the family to safety as soon as possible.

One point that needs to be observed:

The person or persons who murdered JonBenet that evening might just as easily have murdered the entire family. Indeed, they probably would have, if anymore Ramseys had discovered them in the house.

IMO, Boulder PD and prosecutor mishandled the case. Lucky for the Ramseys, huh?

Obviously, no. Not only did they not find the killer of their daughter, but they subjected the family to an appalling witch hunt.

Patsy died and then it was announced they were no longer suspects. Case closed because, IMO, the perp died.

Are you absolutely certain of this? Because if you are not, then this is a particularly callous thing to say, considering that Patsy died from a cancer relapse that was most certainly evoked by the stress of not only losing her beloved daughter at the hands of a brutal killer, but then being vilified as her daughter's murderer by bungling detectives, a reckless and irresponsible news media, and the court of public opinion.

 

[UKGuy]

Obviously, you do not, and you just proved it.



OMG.



I don't have to. You beat me to it.



WRONG.



WRONG, again. :seeya:

Edmond.DantesIII,
There is absolutely no forensic evidence that links to any person outside of the Ramsey Household, i.e. no intruder. All three Ramseys are linked to forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar.

 

[UKGuy]

If JR knew with absolute certainty that his daughter had been brutally murdered by intruders--and not his wife, his son, or himself--then he had very good reason to get the rest of the family to safety as soon as possible.

One point that needs to be observed:

The person or persons who murdered JonBenet that evening might just as easily have murdered the entire family. Indeed, they probably would have, if anymore Ramseys had discovered them in the house.



Obviously, no. Not only did they not find the killer of their daughter, but they subjected the family to an appalling witch hunt.



Are you absolutely certain of this? Because if you are not, then this is a particularly callous thing to say, considering that Patsy died from a cancer relapse that was most certainly evoked by the stress of not only losing her beloved daughter at the hands of a brutal killer, but then being vilified as her daughter's murderer by bungling detectives, a reckless and irresponsible news media, and the court of public opinion.

Edmond.DantesIII,
There is absolutely no forensic evidence that links to any person outside of the Ramsey Household, i.e. no intruder. All three Ramseys are linked to forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar.

 

[BOESP]

<snipped>

There is absolutely no forensic evidence that links to any person outside of the Ramsey Household, i.e. no intruder. All three Ramseys are linked to forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar.
.

UKGuy, I think you are referring to the touch DNA from Burke said to have been found on the Barbie nightgown and, perhaps, the Hi-tech boot print .... is that correct? I may be confused about the nightgown but are we assuming JonBenet originally wore that nightgown the night she was killed. It is also assumed the nightgown came out of the dryer with the blanket ... right?

Didn't John Ramsey state "that's not supposed to be there" when shown a photograph while being questioned by LE about the nightgown being with the blanket? TIA